BelieveItOrNot

Muslims will try very hard to argue for any immoral cases in the Bible to make it look equally as unappealing as their Qur’an so it doesn’t fall to an inferior status. Much like a dysfunctional relationship where you’re the one who’s had enough and wants to let the other go but refuses to let go of you thinking it will still work out. That is the Qur’an to the Bible. The Qur’an wants to share the same status and appreciation as the Bible, but is still unable to rival it to that point. Unfortunately, this is yet another one of those cases where the Qur’an will fall very short of making the Bible look equally unappealing insofar that the Qur’an will look much worse in comparison. It’s the infamous claim about Rebekah’s age of marriage to Isaac which muslims will say was 3. How inaccurate and unsupported by the scriptural evidence this statement is! Here’s why… the Bible does not explicitly say the age of Rebekah when Isaac married her. I will steelman this for the muslims. Muslim arg...

     There is no explicit Biblical foundation for the Noahide laws. You will never find God saying to Noah in Genesis anywhere, "here are my 7 Noahide commandments to the gentiles." No such verse exists. It's a much later invention by rabbis in the rabbinic era to give gentiles a sense of moral code to live by, much like the golden rule but only with a few more 'golden rules' so to speak.  There are two commandments to Noah in Genesis. One is Genesis 9:4; 'don't eat the flesh of a still living animal.' This is considered a Noahide commandment. The other can be interpreted as a Noahide commandment if you do a lot of twisting and turning of the scripture to make it apply to the concept of murder; this is Genesis 9:5-6. Even so, it's still obscure inasmuch that the "shedding of man's blood" could be justified in war and self defense as two examples.  Even the Torah agrees that if you killed a thief before sunrise there is no bloodguilt u...

      I’ve been doing my own personal research on NDE experiences for quite a while now. And although I never actually had one myself I feel compelled from my inner spirit at this moment to comment on the God that most NDE survivors have an encounter with. I also want to most importantly note that this is my own analysis and personal opinion of the God that these survivors describe in their own NDE experience articles. I will break up my post into two parts; the analysis and then my opinion. Analysis This God is described in summary by many of these survivors as unconditionally loving beyond all human perception insofar that he’s basically unfathomable for any human being. Even so, I will still try to form my own opinion about this God in the next part.  I find it interesting that this God is described as being unconcerned with religion as a whole and takes no side whatsoever with what many people might believe is the true religion.  He is also said to...

So, I got into an argument with a serious evolutionist who believed that the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in giraffes and humans is unnecessarily long and is poorly designed and so no creator would have designed it in such a way. And I just wanted to say that a lot of these false notions about the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve being evidence for poor design and therefore evidence for evolution, are the result of a lack of actual understanding of how the SLN and RLN function and its intended purpose in humans and giraffes which doesn't show evolution being a factor whatsoever in reality. The RLN doesn't just innervate the Larynx and go in a weird direction to there from the vessels of the heart. It also innervates the Esophagus and Trachea of the giraffe and so to reach its Larynx from all of these extensions at the same time, the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve needs to be, indeed, very long in the giraffe to begin with [1].  And it is indeed a necessity for its extra length in huma...

I love how science likes to glorify the ability of animals and intentionally misleads people into thinking that certain animals such as monkeys can do things like count and do math exactly the way humans do it. This is yet another one of science’s fantasies that wishes it were true and even goes as far as saying it in the titles of some articles related to that specific topic. I’m about to put this false claim to rest for good though as I believe this needs to be addressed. Of course, humans created arithmetic and numbers to keep track of things and to measure things like space and time but these things come from our own human brains and perception of the natural world. Monkeys, obviously, did not create numbers nor any other animals for that matter. When scientists conduct these experimental tests for the mathematical capabilities of these certain animals they are teaching them based on our already perceived understanding of numbers and arithmetic. And a lot of the time, the scien...

  The problem with the theory of evolution on the macro scale is that it has always been inherently at odds with the way science has been traditionally conducted since the beginning. When it comes to science it’s not about certainty it’s about uncertainty. That’s why there is no such thing as ‘proof’ in scientific research which I will go in depth with a little more shortly. In a moment’s notice the evidence pointing in one direction can do a U-turn and start pointing elsewhere the more findings there are being discovered for a certain field of science.  Which leads me to my next point and that’s when somebody calls a certain theory in science a ‘fact.’ This entails that science has ‘proof’ of a certain scientific theory as being 100% true. Look at the definition of ‘ proof ’ to get an easy understanding of this. But we know there is no such thing as ‘scientific proof’ in scientific research. These egregiously false statements used by some individuals show their lack of un...